whats so good about 64bit cpus?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

nesck

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
75
0
18,630
Orig topic: http://forums.amd.com/index.php?&showtopic=79750

What advantages does 64bit have over 32bit? I can't see many advantages, other than to make 32bit hardware incompatible with 64bit operating systems and programs, almost forcing you to buy an entire new system if you want to use the operating system (vista). Why would I want to spend $1,000 and end up with almost exactly the same functionality of the computer I had before?

Yes, its true 64bit cpu's offer more ram, however 4gb is more than enough ram for the average gamer, and most 64bit motherboard I see only support 4gb, the 32bit maximum. Thats because it can only support a certian amount of eletricity to power the ram. So even 64bit systems are still limitted almost as 32bit systems are. Ontop of that, most gamers don't mess with the pagefile. So they'll be having 4gb of ram, and only 2gb is the max they'll ever use with pagefile, leaving 2.75gb of ram thats never been touched thanks to pagefile. I ran the "next operating system", and it used 400mb ram, with 200mb allocated to running the most useless services that I would ever need.

64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory. With programming, i'm quite certian they could remove that limit. The 4gb limit can go MUCH higher. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx , It is clear that the 4gb limit everyone is complaining about is an IMPOSED limit. So your buying 64bit cpu's to remove this artificial barrier?

What else would 64bit cpu's offer? Anyone want to explain?

I gtg anyways
 
Well if it's a real 64bit CPU then you get a performance increase on certain types of applications. Hack job's basically give the same results as in 32bit. Given the recent trends in memory pricing and vista's hunger for RAM I'd say that average system's will have 4gig's + of RAM this time next year.
 
Wow, I think your way out in your estimate, I think by next year, most people will not have more than 2 gb's of ram in there system and windows vista still uses pagefile by default. Remember that most of the system I see out there (64bit), only support up to 4gb of ram due to the eletricity requirements to power the ram, so your not even getting the benefits of 64bit compared to 32bit comps without PAE.
 
Only a handful of people here are using a 64bit OS anyway, the vast majority of users are still on a 32bit OS.

The "64bitness" of a CPU is just an architectural feature among many others, the pressure to upgrade is'nt due to 64bit apps & OS, it is because CPUs that can handle 64bit code are just faster than their predecessors.
 
The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.
 
64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory.
Click to expand...

Have you never run a 'modern' game like BF2, X3 or Oblivion?

Turn the settings up to max, crank up the resolution and watch the RAM drain.

Try using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. You can easily exceed 1.5gb RAM with those.
 
You can support up to 1 terabyte of ram with PAE

windows xp = (16kb x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) = 4gb

windows xp with PAE = (16kb x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x 16 = 64gb

Ram is out of the equation, if MS wanted to, they could add PAE to windows xp, but of course they won't. They already have PAE for there 32bit server products.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

Infact they put this limit on windows xp, so people that need a bigger limit must spend more money.

Why do most motherboards that are 64bit, still have a maximum amount of ram? Because it takes more eletricity the more memory a ram module can hold.
 
Most boards now support 4 gb of ram. But there are also boards that support 8 gb of ram. There is only going to be more of these boards by next year. Making 4 gb boards the minority. So just like k8man said around this time next year their will be lots of systems with 4 gb. Also 32-bit has troubles with 4 gb. It can only efficiently use 2-3 gb i think.
 
Most boards now support 4 gb of ram. But there are also boards that support 8 gb of ram. There is only going to be more of these boards by next year. Making 4 gb boards the minority. So just like k8man said around this time next year their will be lots of systems with 4 gb. Also 32-bit has troubles with 4 gb. It can only efficiently use 2-3 gb i think.
Click to expand...

Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.

Most gamers have 1gb or less of ram currently.
 
Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.
Click to expand...
Well I meant that windows XP has trouble with 2-3 gb. See http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?ID=69

And PAE cant have 1TB.
"# In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) allows for up to 64 gigabytes of memory to be used in 32 bit systems, given appropriate operating system support. PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro and above CPUs (including all Pentium-series processors except the original Pentium and the Pentium MMX), as well as by some compatible processors such as those from AMD. The CPUID flag PAE is assigned for the purpose of identifying CPUs with this capability. "
Click to expand...
Takin from Wikipedia.
 
Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.
Click to expand...
Well I meant that windows XP has trouble with 2-3 gb. See http://bink.nu/forums/8805/ShowPost.aspx

And PAE cant have 1TB.
"# In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) allows for up to 64 gigabytes of memory to be used in 32 bit systems, given appropriate operating system support. PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro and above CPUs (including all Pentium-series processors except the original Pentium and the Pentium MMX), as well as by some compatible processors such as those from AMD. The CPUID flag PAE is assigned for the purpose of identifying CPUs with this capability. "
Click to expand...
Takin from Wikipedia.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

From the article,

"Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition


32 processors and 64 GB RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition


32 processors and 128 GB RAM"

how would you go about getting 128gb ram on a 32bit system?


-----
FROM: http://bink.nu/forums/8805/ShowPost.aspx

Thats because windows see's pagefile and non-paged memory as one, so only 3gigabyte sticks and 1gig of pagefile was seen. Reaching the 4gb limit.


http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/05/26/422326.aspx

Wikipedia seems to be wrong, as its possible to support 128gb of ram with PAE, not 64gb. And its currently not possible to have that much ram using 1 power outlet.
 
32 processors and 128 GB RAM"

how would you go about getting 128gb ram on a 32bit system?
Click to expand...
32 cpus with 4 gb each. 32*4 128 Gb ram.

That is incorrect, You install the OS on 1 system, which can have 1 cpu.

Why does,

Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition = 32 processors and 64 GB RAM
Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition = 32 processors and 128 GB RAM

Windows 2000 Advanced Server = 8 processors and 8 GB RAM

It just means it supports that many cpus. 8 x 4 = 32

http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/05/26/422326.aspx
 
The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.
Click to expand...

"Aren't too big" ? I want some of what you are smoking ! The difference between the two uarch is striking ! Even with a 200MHz advantage over a 2GHz Venice, the 2.2GHz Barton just can't touch its A64 counterpart.

Socket A has been dead and buried quite a while ago, the few leftover remaining are now twice as expensive as the current CPUs as you can see Here and Here

As I have been explaining earlier, the "64bitness" of a CPU is'nt a factor, it is all about the improvements that were made over the previous generation. The K8 uarch can peform more work per clock than what the K7 was capable of and the newer manufacturing process allows the K8 to achieve much higher operating frequency, further increasing the gap between the old and the new.
 
Thats becouse those OS have PAE witch allows it to do that. And I dont really care Im never going to probly use Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition. Im just going to use a home usage OS like win 2k, win XP, win vista. And they dont have PAE (Well I dont know about Vista but its 64 bit so I wont have to worry about 4 gb limitations). I dont feel like arguing any more dont have the time and I dont think anything anyone sais will change your mind so im going to bed.
 
Thats becouse those OS have PAE witch allows it to do that. And I dont really care Im never going to probly use Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition. Im just going to use a home usage OS like win 2k, win XP, win vista. And they dont have PAE (Well I dont know about Vista but its 64 bit so I wont have to worry about 4 gb limitations). I dont feel like arguing any more dont have the time and I dont think anything anyone sais will change your mind so im going to bed.
Click to expand...

So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.

The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.
 
The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.
Click to expand...

O Rly ? I tought those two were completely unrelated ! [/sarcasm]

Do you really think that someone who have been posting here since 2001 would'nt know that for a fact ?

Thing is, the improvements the K8 got over the K7 are tremendous, at no point in time did they "performed roughly the same", the K7 was outclassed as the K8 is a much wider uarch which is capable of more IPC and reaching higher operating frequencies, the ODMC is just the cherry on top.

I held on to my Mobile Barton 2500+ which was OC'ed to 2.6GHz up until December '05, I know what the AXP was capable of but even at that speed, it was easely outclassed by 2.2GHz A64 running stock.
 
So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of motherboards that support 8 gb of ram. Here are a bunch http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=40/form_keyword=8gb+motherboards/skd=1/sortby=popular-/start=0 And in the future there will only be more especially after vista. I wonder if you really are smoking something.
 
First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.
 
64bit ...

its nothing magical or special about it. 64 bit doesn't mean its twice as fast as 32bit. It's relative to how the application and drivers are optimized.

That's all 64 bit means is that it can access LARGER chunks of memory. Allows for LARGER amounts of RAM also.

Now does accessing larger chunks of memory mean twice the performance? NO it does not. It might be at most 30% improvement as an educated guess.

Difference between 32bit and 64bit?
For average users like everyone single person here, absolutely nothing. It benefits no one here to have 64bit processing.

the 64bit you see now is not true 64bit processing. It's more of a hybrid all 32bit with some 64bit general instruction sets.

Keep this in mind

www.google.com and look it up yourself I know for a fact microsft has articles on this stuff.

Orig topic: http://forums.amd.com/index.php?&showtopic=79750

What advantages does 64bit have over 32bit? I can't see many advantages, other than to make 32bit hardware incompatible with 64bit operating systems and programs, almost forcing you to buy an entire new system if you want to use the operating system (vista). Why would I want to spend $1,000 and end up with almost exactly the same functionality of the computer I had before?

Yes, its true 64bit cpu's offer more ram, however 4gb is more than enough ram for the average gamer, and most 64bit motherboard I see only support 4gb, the 32bit maximum. Thats because it can only support a certian amount of eletricity to power the ram. So even 64bit systems are still limitted almost as 32bit systems are. Ontop of that, most gamers don't mess with the pagefile. So they'll be having 4gb of ram, and only 2gb is the max they'll ever use with pagefile, leaving 2.75gb of ram thats never been touched thanks to pagefile. I ran the "next operating system", and it used 400mb ram, with 200mb allocated to running the most useless services that I would ever need.

64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory. With programming, i'm quite certian they could remove that limit. The 4gb limit can go MUCH higher. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx , It is clear that the 4gb limit everyone is complaining about is an IMPOSED limit. So your buying 64bit cpu's to remove this artificial barrier?

What else would 64bit cpu's offer? Anyone want to explain?

I gtg anyways
Click to expand...
 
it supports 8GB's of RAM only if you have a dual core processor.

Because you have a dual core processor you can have up to 4GB per processor. that makes it 8GB's. Has NOTHING to do with it having 64bit general instruction sets.

If you it was a true 64bit you would be able to have around 2 terabytes of RAM installed i think. Either 2 or 21 terabytes... not sure but its a lot larger than 8gb's

do any of you need 100gigabytes of RAM? so that begs the question - do you even need 64bit processing at all? no you don't...

So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of motherboards that support 8 gb of ram. Here are a bunch http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=40/form_keyword=8gb+motherboards/skd=1/sortby=popular-/start=0 And in the future there will only be more especially after vista. I wonder if you really are smoking something.
 
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47669/47669.html?Ad=1

How pathetic, they are purposely putting limits.

From the article,

"As you might expect, Vista Starter will be the most constrained edition. It will support one 32-bit microprocessor and up to 256MB of RAM. The screen resolution will be limited to 1024 x 768 (up from 800 x 600 in Windows XP Starter Edition)."

I want to see anyone give me an explaination on why would they make it support up to 256mb of ram?

"Home Basic and Home N will be limited to 8GB of RAM, whereas Home Premium will support up to 16GB of RAM on both 32-bit and 64-bit PCs"

8gb for home basic, 64bit Home Premium will support 16gb of ram. All do they is change a few lines of coding and pictures, and add a $200+ pricetag.

If you heard that 32bit systems can only support 4gb of ram, you have been LIED to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom